Around 70-80% of the feedback to my decision to rejoin the SNP has been positive. However, it was always inevitable that my stalker from Somerset, and his devoted followers, would have a somewhat different take. I know some people will always give Campbell a free pass no matter what he says or does, but in all seriousness I do think that thread on Twitter was objectively unacceptable. I'm not talking about Campbell's own starter tweet, which was simply mockery of me and (uncharacteristically) didn't stray into outright foul-mouthed abuse. But there are a few dozen replies to that tweet from the Fan Club, and by my reckoning around nine of them are abusive enough to warrant a report to Twitter, and indeed I have reported them to Twitter. Of course it's a complete and utter waste of time reporting even the most extreme abuse in Musk-era Twitter, but sometimes it feels worth going through the motions simply as a matter of principle and self-respect, and I defy any reasonable person to tell me those tweets shouldn't in theory be removed. Highlights include "creepy c**t", "pillock", and "dumb arse".
With relentless reliability, Shannon Donoghue (who along with her partner Chris Cullen was one of the main instigators of my expulsion from the Alba Party) has yet again breached Alba's Code of Conduct by participating in the thread. But never fear, Shannon fans - she won't be expelled from the party, nor will she be suspended, nor will any disciplinary action be taken against her whatsoever. Alba doesn't take disciplinary action against the daughter of the Deputy General Secretary when she bullies people, don't be silly, of course it doesn't. In fact one of the primary functions of the Alba disciplinary machinery is to facilitate and amplify bullying campaigns launched by Shannon and her much-respected extended family. And it can't be denied that the disciplinary machinery is a veritable Rolls Royce in fulfilling this true purpose. What happened to me was merely one of several inspiring examples of Shannon's tremendous success in cleansing the party of members who were not quite to her personal taste.
Nine highly abusive tweets out of a few dozen is an extraordinarily high percentage, and when I showed the thread to a few people, one reaction was: "Don't worry, James, that's just the Alba Way". Now, in one sense that's deeply unfair, because it's actually the Wings Way - Campbell's followers are simply following the standard of behaviour that he has set, and in theory Alba is not the Wings Party. I know there are many, many decent Alba members out there who want nothing to do with Campbell or the thuggery he represents and sponsors. But in another sense it's entirely fair, because the Alba hierarchy have since day one deliberately allowed the boundaries to become blurred between themselves and Wings. Doubtless that was an act of expediency and they reckoned there was some sort of advantage to it, but it's come at a terrible cost, because it's one of the main causes of Alba's brand becoming more toxic than it ever needed to be or ever should have been.
I've noted before that Campbell is a kind of 'Pied Piper' figure, and that can be seen most clearly in the attitude towards him of a certain subset of Alba members. They still regard him as a folk hero when in fact they should be furious with him for wrecking their party's chances of ever becoming a credible electoral force. Campbell pushed for Alba's creation (as indeed I did) and went into one of his prolonged huffs during the period when it looked like Alex Salmond had decided against the idea. But having eventually got what he wanted, did he do what I and so many others did by actually joining the party and getting stuck in and trying to get Alba into fit shape for the future? No of course he didn't. He refused to join and instead did his Pontius Pilate routine, washing his hands of the party, telling his readers to vote Labour or Tory, while berating other people for failing to make a success of Alba. And yet somehow his apologists still fail to join the dots and refuse to accept that his calculated withholding of support has been one of the reasons for Alba's failure.
The irony of course is that the Alba leadership lionise him for that lack of support, while those of us who joined and tried to make the party work have in many cases been either expelled or indirectly forced out, and then been demonised as a "wee gang of malcontents". It's quite telling that Independence Live recently released a highlights video of Alex Salmond, in which many members of the "wee gang of malcontents" featured extremely prominently. One might almost call it "Alex Salmond's Good Times With The Wee Gang of Malcontents: The Movie" - and Zulfikar didn't even get to direct it.
The root cause of my own expulsion was my push for reform and democratisation of the party on the Constitution Review Group, a body on which I had the dubious pleasure of serving alongside the aforementioned Shannon Donoghue and Chris Cullen. The pair of them are, let's be blunt, playground bullies and their sole aim on the CRG was to prevent rank-and-file Alba members from having any say whatsoever in the way the party is run - or from even being given any information on the way the party is run. But of course they were also horrified by the thought that Alba members might find out or guess that they were the ones responsible for thwarting internal party democracy, and that was ultimately the genesis of the malicious disciplinary action taken against me.
Anyone who thinks that I was expelled because the Alba hierarchy genuinely believed that the democratisation proposals I put forward were not in the best interests of the Alba Party must be living on another planet. Those proposals were admittedly not in the best interests of Chris McEleny, or of Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, or of Corri Wilson, or of Shannon Donoghue, or of Chris Cullen. But that is not the same thing as the best interests of the Alba Party.
As I pointed out the other day, having been maliciously expelled from the party on a bunch of utterly ludicrous trumped up charges, nobody in Alba could have any legitimate complaints about my subsequent decision to rejoin the SNP. And yet as that Wings thread on Twitter exemplified, they did have complaints. In fact they did nothing but complain. Specifically, they seemed to think they had a right to expect me to still vote Alba on the Holyrood list even after my expulsion, and were furious with me for making a statement of the bleedin' obvious that I will instead be voting for the party I am now a member of. In absolute seriousness, even if I hadn't rejoined the SNP, who in their right mind would continue voting for a party that has just expelled them? Would Campbell do it? Of course he bloody wouldn't. The sense of entitlement in expecting me to do it is just through the roof.
At some point Alba are going to have to face up to the fact that the appalling way they have been treating their own members is not normal or routine. It is in fact downright weird and abnormal. It has directly brought about a state of affairs in which an Alba vote on the list is simply no longer an acceptable option for a large chunk of the most committed independence supporters. Although I'm one of only a relatively small number who have been expelled from Alba outright, there are any number of others who have been forced out by bullying or ill-treatment. Only a minority of them have done what I did by rejoining the SNP - but I suspect very few of them will be voting Alba on the list in 2026. And that's on Alba. It's not a me issue, it's not an Eva Comrie issue, it's not a Denise Findlay issue, it's not a Jacqueline Bijster issue, it's not an Alan Harris issue. It's an Alba issue. Alba could have been a welcoming broad church, uniting the most radical independence supporters behind a successful list vote strategy. Instead it's chosen to become a narrow, paranoid, autocratic sect - one which now commands far too little support or sympathy to have any realistic chance of winning list seats. Choices have consequences, I'm afraid.
Incidentally, Campbell's mockery of me for rejoining the SNP follows on from his mockery of me a few weeks ago for raising even the vague possibility of standing as an independent candidate or supporting other pro-indy independent candidates. As there were only a finite number of options open to me once Alba expelled me (and one of the very few others was throwing in my lot with Peter A Bell), it's hard to escape the conclusion that he would have mocked me no matter what decision I had taken. And you know what? That might just possibly mean that his mockery is not coming from the most sincere of places.
* * *
Shannon Donoghue has said "Character is always shown - just give it time", and I actually agree with her about that. The time has come for Alba members to at long last find out about the actions and words of the people who run their party, so they can make up their own minds - not only about those people's characters, but also about the sustainability of Alba's whole system of autocratic, elite-led internal governance. I have been persuaded by Shannon's intervention, which I in no way interpret as the victory dance of an immature bully, that my whistleblowing efforts should now aim for maximalist rather than minimalist disclosure of the available material, so that Alba members finally know in as much detail as possible what has hitherto been cynically concealed from them.
Coming up over the next few weeks on Scot Goes Pop's new series 'THE ALBA FILES' -
* 'The Conduct Of Christopher'
* 'Tas Unplugged'
* 'The Inside Track From The Constitution Review Group: Lifestyle Tips From A Straight-Talking Independent Woman'
* The remaining three installments of the story of the sham 'disciplinary' process that led to my expulsion
plus much, much more. Stay tuned.
I do hope this period of catharsis helps you overcome the stress you're clearly still suffering at the hands of that bunch of has beens and never will bes.
ReplyDeleteJust googled Shannon Donoghue as I'd never heard of her. Christ on a bike, I hope that photo was taken on Halloween.
Perhaps even a link to how members can resign since that seems an often asked question with no answer visible in Google…
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know the only way of doing it is to email McEleny -
Deletechris.mceleny@albaparty.org
or Tasmina -
chair@albaparty.org
and tell them you want to resign, then cancel your direct debit manually.
'Alba could have been a welcoming broad church, uniting the most radical independence supporters behind a successful list vote strategy. Instead it's chosen to become a narrow, paranoid, autocratic sect - one which now commands far too little support or sympathy to have any realistic chance of winning list seats.'
ReplyDeleteNever was a truer word spoken. The hopes and trust of true independence supporters have been betrayed in the self-interest of a clique of vain, entitled and not particularly bright individuals. Spoiled brats - but they've spoiled not just their own chances, but those of us all to gain Scottish Independence.
They've taken the party founded on the name and reputation of Alex Salmond and trashed it.
Now find some other toys to throw out of your pram.
It seems both Alba and the SNP have leadership cliques who need removed. The leadership cliques won’t like it but it will be better for the parties and independence. Both parties need a fresh start.
ReplyDeleteI feel that I must step in to protest at the multiple misogynist attacks on Shannon.
ReplyDeleteDo you expect the lass to wrap herself in black from head to toe or something?
It's enough to make me burn one of my party membership cards.
She's a double bagger. One for her and one for me in case hers falls off.
DeleteThe culture is set from the top and Alba queen bee is the terminally insecure Tasmina Ahmed-Shiekh who leeched off Alex Salmond. Her position in Alba and her media company owed everything to him. And she was super glued to his side. Now well she’s fighting for her position in Alba but without him what chance has she got?
ReplyDeleteCorri, Shannon and Chris Cullen are just taking their que from her. She’s keeping her head well down and letting others fight her battles
Cullen isn't Scottish.
ReplyDeleteJames Connolly wasn't Irish.
DeletePlease don't mention James Connolly, one of Edinburgh''s bravest sons, alongside a nonentity like Cullen.
DeleteI kind of think you're enjoying this :-)
ReplyDeleteAnd why not!
ALBA are the tartan Farage of Scotland.
ReplyDeletethe SNP will never lead Scotland to indy
ReplyDeletethey will not even try
but, just in time for every election
INDEEPENDENS
OH THE TORIES
OH THE LABOUR
reminds of old Labour gobshites eyeing a seat in the Lords staggering round the miners welfare at election time saying
SOSHALISM
RED CLYDESIDE
how dumb do you have to be to fall for it
give me indy, or GTF
Off you jog silly boy. There is a real world. Try it out.
DeleteOK Mr Bell !
DeleteSo explain , how. You missed that part out.
ReplyDeleteShannon Donoghue has a reputation as a 'rottweiler' when it comes to protecting her mother. She has also threatened to take legal action against SNP activists and has bragged on Twitter about having 'receipts' on these activists - presumably screenshots of online communications. All of the vicious falling out in the Alba Party dates from after the time she joined the party, although this is perhaps only a contributory factor, as she is otherwise unimportant.
ReplyDeleteSo what is it like to be back amongst the Spineless anti Indy Wokes that are the SNP? You know they will never let Kate Forbes be leader. Heck they are still stabbing Salmond in the back even though he is in his grave and was found not guilty of things they are still trying to convict him for.
ReplyDeleteThe whole wokey thing is much inflated and you've allowed an American talking point to diminish your nation's independence movement. Sturgeon did the same by doubling down on nonsense but none of this needs to be stalling independence. We've allowed it to dominate. These issues are European and worldwide but we've turned them into a Scottish issue.
DeleteWoke? That is so last year. In the real world things are difficult and challenging. Stay in your wee bubble. Best for everyone.
DeleteWoke is a cliché for the benefit of those who think similar clichés, like politically correct contain too many letters.
DeleteIt's not my problem!
ReplyDeleteI've got all the moves.
Appeal to the hand.
Talk to the hump.
ReplyDeleteIts time for you to ignore Wings. He is not known by vast majority of Scottish People, and is only known within the core Indy movement, 90% of which stopped following him long ago. He has no part to play in any future referendum, having already said he would vote against one. He is a big deal only in his own head and the bat shit crazies which follow him, but this is a tiny minority in context of all Yes supporters. He needs Oxygen to be relevant.
ReplyDeleteThe Indy numbers have remained constant before and after Wings turned Unionist, which tells you he has no impact on the support for Independence.
That's gibberish.
DeleteThe reason why YES support has remained at around 50% is because
a) There is no credible process identified by which it might be realised
and
b) There is no timeline for achieving.
Therefore people do not have to focus on it when asked the question. There will be no movement until the two points above are established.
Your conclusion about Campbell's effect/non-effect on YES support are for the classes of P7.
Wings had an affect on the activist base which allowed the activists/politicians to have answers on independence policy to hand.
DeleteYou didn't need (nor want) to credit Wings with these policy positions because they were based on primary source material and to muddy the waters by crediting Wings nullified the points made to those trying to convert.
But he did provide the independence "facts" in digestible style for activists own use from 2012-2016.
He's stopped doing this and is now solely about SNP machinations and women's/children's/trans rights.
Unfortunately, there will be truth to some of the things he says and SNP have not covered themselves in glory. This has meant a key cohort of independence activists are vilified by both sides of the movement.
Wings would present independence positions better than Yes Scotland or the SNP themselves on everything from pensions to euro.
DeleteNobody went about saying "wings says this" or "the wee blue book chapter blah blah". But they took the specific positions in Wings and promolgated them in conversations with their family, friends and acquaintances.
That was his success. But now his prose is for another grouping, those who feel Salmond was targeted, sex based rights. Independence has taken a backseat.
The ire is for other independence supporters. Not unionists anymore and that's sad.
To finish, especially considering independence support is higher than it practically ever has been and the demographic could be on its side, albeit there is more than a little UK, world migration going on which we could not have predicted.
DeleteThe future could still be independence.
"The ire is for other independence supporters. Not unionists anymore and that's sad."
DeleteThe reason for that isn't hard to explain.
The SNP have simply not pursued their prime directive since the end of 2014. They have not identified a process by which it might attained. On the contrary they have shouted down those who have criticised their timidity and capitulation on the issue and for their adoption of highly unpopular policies at the expense of Scotland's Cause. We all know the opportunities missed that could have been harnessed to bring the goal nearer.
However, many (most?) SNP supporters remain wilfully blind to the betrayal of the Cause and the promotion of fringe and dangerous policies, incompetently implemented.
It is therefore no surprise that people - not just Campbell - have a go at both the cabal running the SNP this last decade and the blindly loyal party supporters.
Wings and Alba are no more than two turds floating in a toilet bowl.
DeleteTime to flush them both and disinfect with a large dose of Domestos.
Neither will be missed by the vast majority of the Yes Movement - and the air will smell a hell of a lot better!
A Win-Win!!!
"Wings and Alba are no more than two turds floating in a toilet bowl.
DeleteTime to flush them both and disinfect with a large dose of Domestos.
Neither will be missed by the vast majority of the Yes Movement - and the air will smell a hell of a lot better!"
It is people like you who pollute and poison discussion around Scotland's Cause.
You are party loyalist, nothing less, nothing else.
You are part of the problem.
11.25
DeleteThe strategy has been forever this..
Get people to vote properly indy parties (most likely SNP) in such numbers as everyone from the Scotrish people to London recognise the Scots overwhelmingly want another shot.
Some thought just over 50% of list votes and 49% of constituency votes was enough. It wasn't. Our people weren't even convinced of its absolute necessity, never mind London.
That may change but it starts with an unimpeachable mandate which is more than just one side of Scotland a bawhair more than the other.
Wings is over complicating it. The strategy is and always has been the same. Vote vote vote and if enough vote to change the zeitgeist and it becomes obvious, like in 1997 or in 2011 that something has changed... it may change.
This concept there is no strategy is utter bs.
Everyone knows it starts with voting in an election and if the above is met, and London refuse when everyone knows Scots want a vote.. like in 2014.. 80% did..regardless of No/Yes preference... then things change.
Wings is at it.
12.01
DeleteI may have missed it but how exactly will you convince London/Westminster?
And why do you want to?
Aren't the people of Scotland already sovereign (Claim of Right, 1689)?
Don't the Scottish people have the universal right of self-determination (UN Charter, 1945)?
Anon 12.01pm - you are at it with your utter bullshit. What a nerve. The SNP churned out the 11 point plan and promised voters indyref2 time and time again if they voted SNP. They even stated a date for the referendum. When that date came and went they said de facto referendum. That was ditched and once again the SNP treated voters as idiots. Now Swinney like a classic conman says overwhelming support is necessary. The SNP are charlatans.
DeleteDavid Francis the person who supports a party under suspicion of carrying out criminal acts. Francis is a nasty character with limited morals.
DeleteIt's not in the SNPs hands to deliver an independence referendum off their own back!
DeleteThe actual Scottish people need to agree and vote for it in unquestionable numbers, and not simply by 1 vote.
If there was overwhelming support for another referendum the SNP could call London's bluff. They can't because there isn't!
Can SNP be blamed for not ruthlessly making a case for independence and trying to increase support? Possibly.
But they can't push for a vote without overwhelming backing.
You can deploy the UN and Claim of right arguments. No problem with this but the key is Scottish voters overwhelmingly agreeing another vote is a priority and a necessity. That's who needs convinced, not me.
Regardless, the strategy is obvious.
DeleteWe either vote for pro independence parties in such number that it makes the case insoluble for another vote. Or we don't.
That's it. That's the strategy.
There isn't another one.
Its been the same since the 90s. Only difference now is we've already had a vote now so the 80% who agreed we should answer the question is not 80% anymore. It's 40-50% at best.
The only thing stopping another vote is our own people not seeing it as a priority.
Is SNP blameless? No. But the strategy is and has always been the same.
99.9% of Scotland ignore Wings.
Delete12.30 & 12.34
DeleteThat is not a strategy.
Yes it is! How is it not? Haha
DeleteGetting Scots to vote to an extent Scots believe it has to happen is the only strategy there is ffs.
Wings? Wank(s). Alba? Same. Ignore Alba. They are dead. WOS. When the stupid people stop sending him money he will move on to something else. His mouth frothers were on here recently threatening to slap people. That is their level. They will follow him, like flies round a turd.
Delete1.06
DeleteIt's not a strategy. It's a fraud.
Voting for parties that don't have a credible process for achieving the aim is simply an electioneering device.
"voting for parties...is simply an electoneering device"
DeleteIt sure is. You got any other ways of parties pushing for their ideas?
It all starts with voting, in this case in huge numbers and going from there.
They can't programme the voters to vote for them. That's upto the people.
But if they ever do, they'll push for a referendum if the believe the Scottish people will back them doing so.
None of this is new or difficult.
Your comments are just hot air. No practical process is identified.
DeleteVoting in a multi-issue election does not endorse a change in constitutional arrangements, no matter how much you wish to to be so. You will still be going cap in hand to Westminster to ask them to recognise the outcome ... as you interpret it.
They'll laugh in your face.
You and your ilk simply wish to use Independence as a means of getting elected and re-elected. There is no plan thereafter.
You are vote deceivers, thieves and fraudsters.
practical process is voting for something.
Deletepractical progress is voting in sufficient numbers that both London and other Scots recognise need for another vote.
It's not complicated. You're making it so.
A frustrating by product is the SNP can continue to make that case and win elections of the back of it. That doesn't change that voting in an election for the pro independence parties is the only practical way to progress.
I support independence but dont' necessarily wish to vote SNP all the time. Many are the same. That shows there's an inertia and until that changes, we won't get an independence referendum until the scottish people's enthusiasm changes.
you're can me names all you want. If the Scottish people want independence, they have a means to demonstrate it at every election. It's nobody's fault but ours, it hasn't been achieved.
i literally don't know how you can be more practical in politics than voting for something.
Deleteit's been the strategy since the 1990s.
Wings has brainwashed people. It's incredible.
4.24pm
DeleteIt's got nothing to do with Wings.
Westminster have knocked back Section 30 requests when the SNP had 56 seats and SNP+Greens had 51.3% ov the vote.
What makes you believe that they will somehow succumb and wilt to another request now? They won't.
At least you are honest in saying that you have no alternative.
It would be more honest still if you said that a vote for SNP/Greens/Alba Party s a vote for continued devolved government.
Because, absent a practical process for restoring Scotland's nation-state status and wishful-thinking, that is what it is in reality.
4.23pm
DeleteThere is nothing in what you have stated that is a practical process that starts from where we currently and leads step by step to the end of the Union.
Which makes your comments redundant in the struggle to realise Scotland's Cause.
It starts with scottish folk voting for it ffs lol
DeleteThere is no other way than a large vote for parties and pressure applied.
50.1 isn't that.
What else is there????
They won't on 51% lol
DeleteThat's what we now know.
Even our own people weren't hugely convinced.
Unlike in 2011 where 80% wanted a vote.
Get to that level and things may change. But the 20-30% who would think a vote is legitimate who may not even vote yes are the key.
London can ride out 50/50 no problem.
No doubt about that.
4.45pm
Delete"There is no other way than a large vote for parties and pressure applied" is not a plan. It is a hope. It is wishful-thing. It is a belief in magic.
If 50.1% - a majority - is not enough. What is? 60%? 70%? Why stop there? 100%?
If you allow them to decide you are admitting that they are sovereign in Scotland when they are not. If you allow Westminster to stop Scotland from holding a referendum then you are permitting them us our human right of self-determination.
The Scottish Government needs to assert both Scottish sovereignty and Scotland's right of self-determination as part of that process.
But first of all it has campaign in a Scottish election to take the powers to decide on matters of the constitution. If that is in the manifestos of all supposedly pro-Independence parties and gains a majority then it can legitimately legislate for a referendum as ratification has been provided by the electorate.
The 'approach' you suggest ends with allowing Westminster the final say. That is British involvement in, interference with and influence over Scotland's choice. That will necessarily ensure defeat for our Cause.
And it is not how a country gains its liberation.
I've already said three times already i don't think 50.1 was enough and believe London can ride it out. I don't believe it. We've seen it.
DeleteWhy? 2011 was different as 80% of Scots believed it legitimate to ask the question and therefore much more difficult for London to claim a divided country.
A country doesn't claim its liberation when half the same country doesn't support liberation. You need to convince the Scots themselves of the legitimacy of the vote.. that's all.
Well get it again if we have consensus on asking the question again, as we did in the past. Until then, it won't happen.
51% is fine in a vote people agree is legitimate but if the other half of our people don't agree ..... it won't work.
4.48pm
Delete"They won't on 51% lol. That's what we now know."
You don't know anything the sort. You don't even know if 100% would be sufficient. Why would Westminster agree?
"Unlike in 2011 where 80% wanted a vote."
In 2011 the SNP garnered 45.4% of the constituency vote and 44% on the regional ballot. The Greens secured 4.4% of the regional vote (and didn't stand for constituencies). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Scottish_Parliament_election
What is your source for the "80% wanted a vote" claim that you make?
"London can ride out 50/50 no problem."
London will be able to "ride out" any scenario where the Scottish Government simply asks for permission or recognition or blessing or any other begging euphemism.
They need to grow spine. Act like they actually believe in Scottish sovereignty and Scotland's right of self-determination rather than just talking then whining about it.
It's all been boating then cowering thus far.
5.24pm
Delete"I've already said three times already i don't think 50.1 was enough and believe London can ride it out."
But why would 100% work? If you ask you are affording them the opportunity to refuse. You are telling them that they decide!
That fundamentally undermines Scottish sovereignty and our self-determination rights.
You need to stand up to Westminster.
And what is the 80% you are talking about - what's the source?
It was pretty well established there was a difference between the number voting SNP and the number who thought it was legitimate to ask the big question.
DeleteSalmond talked about it a lot.. I think it was 77% said we should now ask the question.
I can't find it but having lived through it, it was evident Scots felt it was time.
The problem searching for that data now is it's swamped by the polling on the question itself so difficult to locate.
The difference now is not even all SNP voters necessarily wanted a vote right now. Never mind those more on the fence.
If 100% wouldn't work then we're gubbed.
I do believe it's upto Scots to own their own destiny and the vote can be 51% as a mandate but the lovers have to accept a vote is legitimate and that's a different figure. You can't just call a vote half the country doesn't agree to itself, never mind London.
*losers
DeleteMaybe James can find the polling on whether Scots wanted a vote or not.
DeleteIf he's reading. I think it was pretty well understood most Scots were in favour of having a vote.
I mean there is one poll showing 80odd in favour of 2014 or asap in what Scorland thinks website ..but there was more than one.
5.50pm
Delete"It was pretty well established there was a difference between the number voting SNP and the number who thought it was legitimate to ask the big question.
Salmond talked about it a lot.. I think it was 77% said we should now ask the question."
OK, so no source. Just a claim from your memory. No actual evidence. I have no such recollection. And even if I did I would only believe it if it was verifiable.
I note that you have made no reference to the points I made about Scottish sovereignty, Scotland's right of self-determination and the Scottish Government's willingness to assert these via the Scottish Parliament once manifestos containing a commitment to legislate on constitutional matters has been endorsed by a majority voting in favour of this in a Scottish election.
You seem to prefer to fixate on the proportion of votes in an election. On which subject:
"If 100% wouldn't work then we're gubbed."
My point is, if we ask for permission/blessing we are already gubbed. The answer will always be no, now is not the time or some variation thereof.
Why would they agree otherwise when we/our Scottish Government have accepted that they can decide?
Look, there are polls.. I highlighted one but I don't think anyone can credibly say the recognition a vote was due was far higher then than now.
DeleteI already agree with Scottish sovereignty and agreed it's useful. My point is we need to convince our own people more than anyone else. If you get that right, then that's more than half the battle.
We probably will have to call a defacto election of some kind, every election is a gauge of it already. What we can't do is expect to carry our own people or international favour off the back of 51%.
7.06pm
DeleteYou haven't highlighted a poll. You've made a claim that there is one (or maybe more) ... but you haven't provided one. I am certainly not aware of one but if you provide a source then we can consider that at that point.
"I already agree with Scottish sovereignty"
If you truly did you would not be supporting an 'approach' that hands over that sovereignty to a parliament (as apposed to people), a foreign one at that.
You must have an explicit vote on the constitution, no other issues involved. Grant the Scottish Parliament legislative competence on that issue as part of an election then pass an act in that parliament to hold a referendum.
The hold the plebiscite that is 'Made in Scotland', with parameters set by the parliament or under such agencies that it deems appropriate.
A simple majority for YES and Independent statehood is declared.
Otherwise the status quo is maintained.
Clan Campbell are out in force this morning.
ReplyDeleteClan waanker(s) you mean?
ReplyDeleteAnon at 12.25. Which part of under suspicion do you struggle to understand? And how many active prosecutions are there? Idiot.
ReplyDeleteAnon at 12.25. Gone very quiet? That makes you a wee liar. Oh dear.
DeleteAnon at 4.54pm - how do you know anon at 12.25 has gone quiet - all the above posts are by anons any one of which could be anon at 12.25pm.
DeleteThat makes you an idiot.
Sturgeon and Beattie are under investigation by the police and Murrell has been charged with embezzlement by the police. Seems to me anon saying under suspicion underplays the situation and once again you are the true idiot.
538 -so you want to overplay? IFS
Delete903 - Mickey Mouse.
DeleteAnon at 5.38. Read your own post very slowly or get someone competent to help you. Silly billy. How many prosecutions are there? In your own time. You are one of the unionists useful idiots. There will be no prosecutions.
DeleteAnon at 1.19pm - people working for the British state tend not to get prosecuted. There is a British law protecting them. Surprised you don't know that or perhaps you do know that.
DeleteHome rule for Somerset 😏
ReplyDelete"one of the very few others was throwing in my lot with Peter A Bell"
ReplyDeleteJames:
What are the reasons that you discounted joining Bell's party?
I note that the first post-(re-)Conversion article has been published in the SNP rag.
ReplyDeleteBought and sold for National ... brass.